Poll: If Iraq used WMD (aka NBC weapons) would you...

[Spyro]

Originally posted by: apoppin
I hate to bring this up but this forum is no place for sarcasm - especially since feelings are intense and offence is often taken where none is meant. I was "guilty" of it earlier and spent a lot of time "explaining".

I'd just suggest for future for everyone to note that they are being sarcastic perhaps in a footnote to smooth things along here.

Good idea, I suppose I should have been much more descriptive. Thanks apoppin .

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: apoppin

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: apoppin

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: MartyTheManiak

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
If the Iraqi's were to attack us with WMD's I would support returning the favor in the form of a battlefield tactical nuke to wipe out the Wog Troops that launched them.

And if it was launched from inside a city - the most likely case?

Take out the Republican Wogs on the outskirts of the city!

And then what?

And then walk in to Baghdad with Reinforcements!

Ok, now we're gettin somewhere.

What do "you" do to prevent Saddam from setting off his WMDs INSIDE Baghdad in an orgy of mass destruction - i.e. millions of civilian casualties designed to draw the Arabs into a general - jihad - war against the US and Britain?

Ahem . . . I asked this almost an hour ago . . . Did your "scenario projector" get stuck?



EDIT: It's to Red Dawn and he knows about my sarcasm . . . oops!
It's just that you were on a roll and I was hoping to know what you would do - or what we should do in this likely worst case scenario . . . (honestly)

 

[Siddhartha]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
If the Iraqi's were to attack us with WMD's I would support returning the favor in the form of a battlefield tactical nuke to wipe out the Wog Troops that launched them.

I am surprised that the moderators tolerate your use of the racial slur "Wog"

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: Dr Smooth

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
If the Iraqi's were to attack us with WMD's I would support returning the favor in the form of a battlefield tactical nuke to wipe out the Wog Troops that launched them.

I am surprised that the moderators tolerate your use of the racial slur "Wog"

wog ( P ) Pronunciation Key (wg)
n. Chiefly British Offensive Slang
Used as a disparaging term for a person of color, especially a person from northern Africa or western or southern Asia.
[Probably short for golliwog.]

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: Dr Smooth

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
If the Iraqi's were to attack us with WMD's I would support returning the favor in the form of a battlefield tactical nuke to wipe out the Wog Troops that launched them.

I am surprised that the moderators tolerate your use of the racial slur "Wog"

Sorry, I wasn't aware that the term had racial meanings. My ignorance isn't any excuse but I promise not to use it again.

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: Dr Smooth

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
If the Iraqi's were to attack us with WMD's I would support returning the favor in the form of a battlefield tactical nuke to wipe out the Wog Troops that launched them.

I am surprised that the moderators tolerate your use of the racial slur "Wog"

Sorry, I wasn't aware that the term had racial meanings. My ignorance isn't any excuse but I promise not to use it again.

It is an English slur . . . I remember it from when I lived over there 30 years ago.

However, you never answered my question: "What do "you" do to prevent Saddam from setting off his WMDs INSIDE Baghdad in an orgy of mass destruction - i.e. millions of civilian casualties designed to draw the Arabs into a general - jihad - war against the US and Britain?"

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: apoppin

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: Dr Smooth

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
If the Iraqi's were to attack us with WMD's I would support returning the favor in the form of a battlefield tactical nuke to wipe out the Wog Troops that launched them.

I am surprised that the moderators tolerate your use of the racial slur "Wog"

Sorry, I wasn't aware that the term had racial meanings. My ignorance isn't any excuse but I promise not to use it again.

It is an English slur . . . I remember it from when I lived over there 30 years ago.

However, you never answered my question: "What do "you" do to prevent Saddam from setting off his WMDs INSIDE Baghdad in an orgy of mass destruction - i.e. millions of civilian casualties designed to draw the Arabs into a general - jihad - war against the US and Britain?"

Beats me. If I knew I would email General Myers and let him in on my solution!

I did hear the term Wog from an English Movie. I thought it was just a disparaging term for an enemy combatant, not for a race.

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: apoppin

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

However, you never answered my question: "What do "you" do to prevent Saddam from setting off his WMDs INSIDE Baghdad in an orgy of mass destruction - i.e. millions of civilian casualties designed to draw the Arabs into a general - jihad - war against the US and Britain?"

Beats me. If I knew I would email General Myers and let him in on my solution!

I did hear the term Wog from an English Movie. I thought it was just a disparaging term for an enemy combatant, not for a race.

Yep, it was a very popular term - golliwog or wog - for quite awhile . . . and I do think you have some "excuse" since it is not really in use in the US.

And I sure WISH I had an answer to my greatest fear about the war . . . other than "pull back".

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: apoppin

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: apoppin

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

However, you never answered my question: "What do "you" do to prevent Saddam from setting off his WMDs INSIDE Baghdad in an orgy of mass destruction - i.e. millions of civilian casualties designed to draw the Arabs into a general - jihad - war against the US and Britain?"

Beats me. If I knew I would email General Myers and let him in on my solution!

I did hear the term Wog from an English Movie. I thought it was just a disparaging term for an enemy combatant, not for a race.

Yep, it was a very popular term - golliwog or wog - for quite awhile . . . and I do think you have some "excuse" since it is not really in use in the US.

And I sure WISH I had an answer to my greatest fear about the war . . . other than "pull back".

I think the strategy is to encircle Baghdad and lay siege to it while using Special Ops to go in a take out Command and Military targets.

Pulling out is not an option as it would be even worse for the US to concede defeat to Hussien. Plus if we did Bush might as well resign because nobody would vote for him in 2004.

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: apoppin

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: apoppin

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

However, you never answered my question: "What do "you" do to prevent Saddam from setting off his WMDs INSIDE Baghdad in an orgy of mass destruction - i.e. millions of civilian casualties designed to draw the Arabs into a general - jihad - war against the US and Britain?"

And I sure WISH I had an answer to my greatest fear about the war . . . other than "pull back".

I think the strategy is to encircle Baghdad and lay siege to it while using Special Ops to go in a take out Command and Military targets.

Pulling out is not an option as it would be even worse for the US to concede defeat to Hussien. Plus if we did Bush might as well resign because nobody would vote for him in 2004.

Clearly we are mired in a quandry. We moved in too fast, overconfident that it would be "easy". Now a long siege of Baghdad is what Saddam wants as he is in charge of molding world (and especially arab) opinion . . . we will see endless pictures of civilian casualties . . .

And when we FINALLY go in - do you really think Special Ops will find even half of his hidden WMD arsenal before he uses them? Our Iraqi intellegence is really poor.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: apoppin

Clearly we are mired in a quandry. We moved in too fast, overconfident that it would be "easy". Now a long siege of Baghdad is what Saddam wants as he is in charge of molding world (and especially arab) opinion . . . we will see endless pictures of civilian casualties . . .

And when we FINALLY go in - do you really think Special Ops will find even half of his hidden WMD arsenal before he uses them? Our Iraqi intellegence is really poor.

First of all how do you know our intelligence is really poor? Secondly if Basara is liberated along with other cities were the population have been brutalized by Hussien don't you think word would get out to the other Arab Nations, especially if those in the Liberated Cities start to rejoice over their freedom from Hussien?

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: apoppin

Clearly we are mired in a quandry. We moved in too fast, overconfident that it would be "easy". Now a long siege of Baghdad is what Saddam wants as he is in charge of molding world (and especially arab) opinion . . . we will see endless pictures of civilian casualties . . .

And when we FINALLY go in - do you really think Special Ops will find even half of his hidden WMD arsenal before he uses them? Our Iraqi intellegence is really poor.

First of all how do you know our intelligence is really poor? Secondly if Basara is liberated along with other cities were the population have been brutalized by Hussien don't you think word would get out to the other Arab Nations, especially if those in the Liberated Cities start to rejoice over their freedom from Hussien?

HOW?

1) We committed far less troops that is necessary.
2) We thought the Iraqi people would rise up against Saddam
3) We didn't realize the power of Saddam's Propaganda and worked to shut off Iraqi TV TOO LATE
4) We are "paused" - a step short of retreat and getting attacked in AmBush Alley.
5) We could NEVER find Saddam and don't know ANYthing about him or his son's condion.
6) We don't know what we will face in Baghdad.
7) We WERE in control of Basera and then we WEREn't . . . what is "control".
8) We fully EXPECTED to have huminatarian aid in Iraq long before now and it is proving to be a HUGE problem - we are now accused of "starving Iraqi's population".

I bet I can think of more - this is just as I type . . .

So - do you think we have GOOD Iraqi Intellegence?

 

[jjones]

Originally posted by: apoppin
Clearly we are mired in a quandry. We moved in too fast, overconfident that it would be "easy". Now a long siege of Baghdad is what Saddam wants as he is in charge of molding world (and especially arab) opinion . . . we will see endless pictures of civilian casualties . . .

And when we FINALLY go in - do you really think Special Ops will find even half of his hidden WMD arsenal before he uses them? Our Iraqi intellegence is really poor.

Are you for real? I week into the war and we're "mired in a quagmire"? (I assume you meant quagmire, not quandry) This isn't a game of CS. What did you expect? All our tanks just roll up to the gates of Baghdad and General Franks knocks on the door and asks Saddam for the keys to the city?

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: jjones

Originally posted by: apoppin
Clearly we are mired in a quandry. We moved in too fast, overconfident that it would be "easy". Now a long siege of Baghdad is what Saddam wants as he is in charge of molding world (and especially arab) opinion . . . we will see endless pictures of civilian casualties . . .

And when we FINALLY go in - do you really think Special Ops will find even half of his hidden WMD arsenal before he uses them? Our Iraqi intellegence is really poor.

Are you for real? I week into the war and we're "mired in a quagmire"? (I assume you meant quagmire, not quandry) This isn't a game of CS. What did you expect? All our tanks just roll up to the gates of Baghdad and General Franks knocks on the door and asks Saddam for the keys to the city?

Did you read my other posts and the thread I started expressing my belief that Saddam will murder millions of his own citizens by unleashing his WMD when the Coalition enters Baghdad just to start Jihad?

When you do, you will find out if I am "real" or not.

EDIT: You are right - "quandry" is not right but "quagmire" doesn't express my meaning - I'd suggest predicament.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: apoppin

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: apoppin

Clearly we are mired in a quandry. We moved in too fast, overconfident that it would be "easy". Now a long siege of Baghdad is what Saddam wants as he is in charge of molding world (and especially arab) opinion . . . we will see endless pictures of civilian casualties . . .

And when we FINALLY go in - do you really think Special Ops will find even half of his hidden WMD arsenal before he uses them? Our Iraqi intellegence is really poor.

First of all how do you know our intelligence is really poor? Secondly if Basara is liberated along with other cities were the population have been brutalized by Hussien don't you think word would get out to the other Arab Nations, especially if those in the Liberated Cities start to rejoice over their freedom from Hussien?

HOW?

1) We committed far less troops that is necessary.
2) We thought the Iraqi people would rise up against Saddam
3) We didn't realize the power of Saddam's Propaganda and worked to shut off Iraqi TV TOO LATE
4) We are "paused" - a step short of retreat and getting attacked in AmBush Alley.
5) We could NEVER find Saddam and don't know ANYthing about him or his son's condion.
6) We don't know what we will face in Baghdad.
7) We WERE in control of Basera and then we WEREn't . . . what is "control".
8) We fully EXPECTED to have huminatarian aid in Iraq long before now and it is proving to be a HUGE problem - we are now accused of "starving Iraqi's population".

I bet I can think of more - this is just as I type . . .

So - do you think we have GOOD Iraqi Intellegence?

You are one those that beleives all bad news and no good news. You are quite convinces were are getting our assed kicked, when in fact the iraqi army is being routed.

 

[charrison]

Just reports on foxnews, there is not operational pause....

Looks like we are experiencing a disinformation campaign....

 

[apoppin]

From last night's Nightline:

The ground "pause" was necessary, according to Lt. Gen. William Wallace, the Army's top commander at the front, because supply lines were stretched so thin. He also told reporters that Iraqi resistance was more intense than anticipated which could make the war longer.

Sources said his comments drew an angry phone call from his boss Gen. Tommy Franks. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld would not say if Wallace was in trouble.

"I suppose everyone can have their own view," Rumsfeld told reporters today.

The view from the field squared with what Wallace was saying, even if the Bush administration did not like it.

"The United States was planning on walking in here like it was easy and all," Marine Sgt. Jimmy Paiz said. "It's not that easy to conquer a country, is it?"

Supply lines, under continued assault from Iraqi guerrillas, appear to be under duress, with troops running out of food, water and fuel. Soldiers are calling the 250-mile-long supply lines ? a network of roads toward U.S. troops south of Baghdad ? "ambush alley."

"We've got to the stage where some of the infantry here are down to one meal a day, so it's a pretty difficult situation supplying such a large and high-tech army," said the BBC's David Willis, with U.S. Marines in central Iraq.

PREDICAMENT is a term I do not use loosely.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: apoppin
From last night's Nightline:

The ground "pause" was necessary, according to Lt. Gen. William Wallace, the Army's top commander at the front, because supply lines were stretched so thin. He also told reporters that Iraqi resistance was more intense than anticipated which could make the war longer.

Sources said his comments drew an angry phone call from his boss Gen. Tommy Franks. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld would not say if Wallace was in trouble.

"I suppose everyone can have their own view," Rumsfeld told reporters today.

The view from the field squared with what Wallace was saying, even if the Bush administration did not like it.

"The United States was planning on walking in here like it was easy and all," Marine Sgt. Jimmy Paiz said. "It's not that easy to conquer a country, is it?"

Supply lines, under continued assault from Iraqi guerrillas, appear to be under duress, with troops running out of food, water and fuel. Soldiers are calling the 250-mile-long supply lines ? a network of roads toward U.S. troops south of Baghdad ? "ambush alley."

"We've got to the stage where some of the infantry here are down to one meal a day, so it's a pretty difficult situation supplying such a large and high-tech army," said the BBC's David Willis, with U.S. Marines in central Iraq.

PREDICAMENT is a term I do not use loosely.

Dont you find it odd supply line issues are being discussed in front of reporters. Could it be disinformation?

 

[andreasl]

apoppin,

I'm curious, have you ever served in the military?

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: andreasl
apoppin,

I'm curious, have you ever served in the military?

No - CO during the Vietnam war. What does that have to do with anything?

Have you?

 

[andreasl]

Originally posted by: apoppin

Originally posted by: andreasl
apoppin,

I'm curious, have you ever served in the military?

No - CO during the Vietnam war. What does that have to do with anything?

Have you?

Yes, I have. I was just curious since you are making grandiose predictions about the coalition strategy.

In regards to the pause in the advancement.. For an operation of this kind it's a perfectly natural thing. The fighting elements always outrun their logistical tail. And at some point they need to pause and wait for them to catch up. In the meantime they repair and conduct maintenance of their equipment (driving hundreds of miles across desert and into sandstorms is not good for tracked vehicles in particular). As for the supply lines, yes the Iraqis are attacking them, but rather unsuccessfully so far. There is NO indication that they have managed to cut the supply lines.

Even without any sorts of opposition, any army would have to stop and wait for the logistical tail to catch up to replenish their supplies and fuel before continuing the advance.

EDIT: Forgot to add, the troops also need to rest after such a dash of advance. If the Iraqis had managed to cut the supplylines the bodycount for the US would be ALOT higher than it is now.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: andreasl

Originally posted by: apoppin

Originally posted by: andreasl
apoppin,

I'm curious, have you ever served in the military?

No - CO during the Vietnam war. What does that have to do with anything?

Have you?

Yes, I have. I was just curious since you are making grandiose predictions about the coalition strategy.

In regards to the pause in the advancement.. For an operation of this kind it's a perfectly natural thing. The fighting elements always outrun their logistical tail. And at some point they need to pause and wait for them to catch up. In the meantime they repair and conduct maintenance of their equipment (driving hundreds of miles across desert and into sandstorms is not good for tracked vehicles in particular). As for the supply lines, yes the Iraqis are attacking them, but rather unsuccessfully so far. There is NO indication that they have managed to cut the supply lines.

Even without any sorts of opposition, any army would have to stop and wait for the logistical tail to catch up to replenish their supplies and fuel before continuing the advance.

It is doubtful that apoppin will ever understand this.

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: andreasl

Originally posted by: apoppin

Originally posted by: andreasl
apoppin,

I'm curious, have you ever served in the military?

No - CO during the Vietnam war. What does that have to do with anything?

Have you?

Yes, I have. I was just curious since you are making grandiose predictions about the coalition strategy.

Where? I don't remember posting anything original on coalition strategy - ALL my posts are regarding combatting Saddam's suicide-murder strategy of devastating Baghdad and the unwillingness of most people to even consider this as a valid - if evil - way to start jihad.

 

[andreasl]

Originally posted by: apoppin

Originally posted by: andreasl

Originally posted by: apoppin

Originally posted by: andreasl
apoppin,

I'm curious, have you ever served in the military?

No - CO during the Vietnam war. What does that have to do with anything?

Have you?

Yes, I have. I was just curious since you are making grandiose predictions about the coalition strategy.

Where? I don't remember posting anything original on coalition strategy - ALL my posts are regarding combatting Saddam's suicide-murder strategy of devastating Baghdad and the unwillingness of most people to even consider this as a valid - if evil - way to start jihad.

I am sorry apoppin, I must have misred this statement of yours:

HOW?

1) We committed far less troops that is necessary.
2) We thought the Iraqi people would rise up against Saddam
3) We didn't realize the power of Saddam's Propaganda and worked to shut off Iraqi TV TOO LATE
4) We are "paused" - a step short of retreat and getting attacked in AmBush Alley.

EDIT: And lots others in this thread and others.

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: andreasl

Originally posted by: apoppin

Originally posted by: andreasl

Originally posted by: apoppin

Originally posted by: andreasl
apoppin,

I'm curious, have you ever served in the military?

No - CO during the Vietnam war. What does that have to do with anything?

Have you?

Yes, I have. I was just curious since you are making grandiose predictions about the coalition strategy.

Where? I don't remember posting anything original on coalition strategy - ALL my posts are regarding combatting Saddam's suicide-murder strategy of devastating Baghdad and the unwillingness of most people to even consider this as a valid - if evil - way to start jihad.

I am sorry apoppin, I must have misred this statement of yours:

HOW?

1) We committed far less troops that is necessary.
2) We thought the Iraqi people would rise up against Saddam
3) We didn't realize the power of Saddam's Propaganda and worked to shut off Iraqi TV TOO LATE
4) We are "paused" - a step short of retreat and getting attacked in AmBush Alley.

EDIT: And lots others in this thread and others.

As I said, none of those thoughts are "original" and were in answer to direct questions . . . are you completely disagreeing with the 4 points ! regurgitated from military analysists . . . i.e. DO YOU THINK we committed sufficient troops . . . Didn't we think the Iraqi people WOULD revolt? . . . You like seeing the images of "US caused civilain casualties and our POWs being paraded - was it wise to allow this? . . . And are we NOT "paused"?




Nitpick all you want on my repetition of military analysys - my entire point is, WHAT ARE WE GONNA DO TO PREVENT SADDAM FROM UNLEASHING WMD and the total destruction of Baghdad AT HIS "END"? Well?